It appears the media talking heads are in state of total panic about the grass roots revolution of British workers against the political and plutocratic elites plan to disenfranchise and impoverish British workers by globalising our national economy.

Note how the media keep saying ' We must make sure these demonstrations do not become anti-foreigner and anti-Italian racist demonstrations ', when NOT ONE person at any of those demonstrations has said one word about blaming foreigners and Italians.

British workers are not stupid - they know that the problem is entirely the Banksters, the politicians and the media and not 'foreigners and Italians'.

What the media are trying to do is to link the protests with 'racism' and thereby flick the guilt switch that the word racism inspires in the conditioned minds of the British public. Usually when the media call something 'racist' then it triggers a pre-conditioned pavlovian response, and the individual or public institution immediately begins to visibly diminish and wither. Its as though salt were poured on a slug, as the object retracts in upon itself and then slowly dies.

The voodoo of the word 'racism' is heap powerful magic, and it is used in the same way as African witchdoctors once used powerful spells and curses to put a bad 'Ju-Ju' spell on someone.

This media voodoo is very potent and dangerous and when a Ju-Ju curse of racism has been placed upon an institution then it normally undergoes hysterical collapse, extreme psychological distress and visible physical symptoms of panic and pain.

Only those who have been bitten by the serpent once before are immune to its poison, so in order to acquire their immunity to the poison British workers must also be bitten by the media and smeared as racists.

The media by seeking to conflate the strikes with 'racism' are guilty of an unlawful attempt to subvert the interests of British workers.

By their actions are they damned. The British media use its talking heads to support, empower and enrich the capitalist and corporate class that also control and own the companies and corporations involved in the hiring and importation of foreign workers into Britain.

The media are acting to protect the interests of their own employers - for the same globalist corporate that signed the contracts and that are also involved in these 'worker dumping' scams, also own the media.

The media tell the masses the lies their corporate masters tell them to tell.

The media are the primary weapon in the arsenal of the plutocrat controlled Servile State.

This is because the media is the propaganda wing of the globalist corporations, and all the media corporations are directly owned by the same corporations that profit from globalisation.

The worker faces not just the enemies of politicians, banksters and the Servile State but also the media - and the media are the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the globalists, more powerful even than the para-military wing of the corporations which are the national state policing and judicial bodies.

The more the media try to propagandise and peddle the lie to the masses that the strikes are about 'racism', the faster the British workers involved in those strikes will understand the true nature of the media and hence the true nature of our society and the problem itself.

The foreign workers are simply workers. They are just taking the jobs they were offered. They are symptoms of the problem, they are not The Problem.

They are also tools of the same British, European Union and globalist political and corporate elite that is throwing British workers on the dole over here.

It is the system that is the problem, not the workers of our nations.

The comrades of the British workers are the Italian workers, the German workers, the French workers, the Russian workers and all workers across Europe, for their struggle for the reclamation of their national idea is the same as our struggle for the reclamation of our national idea.

It is the work of all European workers that is required to create the national communities and the forms of a new European idealism that must replace the present globalist system. Nations ruled in the interests of profit or class merely cause conflicts between neighbours. This is why our nations must be governed by those who seek to promote only the higher principles of democratic nationalist idealism.

Ours is a 'unity of purpose' not a political union.

We will all arise as one, comrades in the struggle for the unity and ideals of both our national communities and of European civilisation itself.

Each of the nations that must be rebuilt across Europe requires all their workers.

Men that are forced to leave their own nations and march across Europe in search of jobs to feed their families are not free men, and they do not have the right to free movement of workers. They are compelled to leave their nations, homes and families and seek work because the system forces them too. There is no 'freedom' in this criminal system of globalisation of workers and capital, it is simply global slavery where the wage slave is owned by the same corporations that control and run the media, the government and the finanical system.

It is the system that creates the economic crises that cause the problems in our national economies. The system then profits from removing European workers from their ancestral lands and making them rootless serfs in the European Union slave plantation.

Pouring more money into this system is insanity.

A new system must be imposed.

That new system must be based on both the National Ideal and the European Ideal.

We wish to see a Europe of national flags that each fly with equal pride, power and dignity alongside the other.

We wish to see a Europe Of Nations, not a european union.

The Europe that we will build from the rubble of the European Union will be a Europe of independent nations, each a bulwark for the defence of their national communities and cultures and each also dedicated to the preservation of the ideals and unity of our European civilisation itself.

The present economic system cannot be fixed. It must be dismantled and in its place a new system imposed.

The EU, the UN, the international corporations, the globalists, the WTO, the World Bank and the rest of the internationalist power and financial structures that form the nexus of the globalist system, must be removed from any form of power in our nations.

Along with that there must be massive media reform so that truth is not replaced by propaganda.

Friday, 30 January 2009

The strikers now need to formulate sensible policies that all the various protest groups can agree on.

They need to start putting pressure on their unions to do two things ;

1) If the Labour government condemns the strikes and British workers defending their jobs, then the union members must remove themselves from their union political funds that are used by the unions to fund the Labour Party and they must also put pressure on their unions to cease funding the Labour Party.

Legal cases need to be started against the companies that do not advertise jobs for British workers before they import in foreign labour.

2) If their unions do not support them then resign their union memberships and join either Solidarity or set up workers councils to run their own affairs.

What next for the strikers ;

1) The workers have to put pressure on their unions to investigate the legality of the contracts that awarded the jobs to the foreign companies

2) The workers must send representatives to the other sites and form a communications network to co-ordinate future walk outs and strikes in order to target individual companies

3) The workers must identify and target both the companies that control the contracts and the companies that sign the contracts.

4) The workers must formulate clear demands such as ;

A) Companies should cease importing in foreign labour to fill British jobs

B) Job vacancies for British jobs should be advertised locally first and British workers allowed to apply

C) British workers should be allowed to apply for all jobs of all contracts that involve the creation of jobs in Britain

D) The right of foreign workers to work in Britain does not include the right to take British jobs from British workers

E) British jobs should be advertised for British workers before allowing foreign workers to take British jobs.

F) British workers should not be discriminated against by companies just because they are British.

The favoured smear trick of the liberal media journalists to attack the British workers demonstrating outside their factories and places of work, is to say that the strikes are 'illegal' as British law says the contracts are legal and that EU law prohibits us preventing European workers from taking British jobs.

For a start only a gutless simpering liberal wet would even think for a second that a British government that served the interests of the British people would not act in the name of British workers.

Regardless of what the damned EU says, WE WILL ACT.

Their law is only our law as long as they govern us.

When we govern ourselves once more, then we will impose OUR laws.

A BNP government would, on the grounds of ensuring national security and public order, order an immediate derogation from any business laws, directives or regulations that allow British or foreign companies to bid for British contracts whose workforce is drawn solely from a foreign nation, whether in the EU or outside it, and also forbid the issuance or awarding of any contracts where British workers are not allowed to first apply for and obtain those jobs in Britain.

The fact that the lip trembling liberals and the fops on the right who are supine before political correctness and liberal cowardice, will almost go into swoon when they read these proposals to put British workers first tells us how debased our nation and politics has become.

We are British Nationalists.

We place the interests of British workers first.

All British workers, regardless of race, colour, creed or class will be put to the front of the queue for British jobs.

At the same time as we impose our British Workers First Policy we will be taking action to ensure every illegal immigrant, every bogus asylum seeker, every economic migrant, every terrorist and extremist, every visa overstayer, every illegal entrant, every naturalised convicted criminal and every sex slave or trafficked worker is removed from our nation.

From Australian barmen to Zairean call centre workers, if you are here illegally then we will deport you as soon as we find you.

The issue of deporting illegal entrants from our nation has NOTHING to do with racism - illegal entrants are of all races, creeds, colours and class.

It is solely their legal status that concerns us, not their racial status.

The media seek to portray and conflate the issue of foreign labour and illegal entrants with racism, yet this is a completely facile and bogus smear.

The issue is solely about their legal status.

The present laws that allow companies to bid for British contracts by undercutting the bids of British companies by using solely non-British labour are in breach of the race relations acts as they discriminate against British workers on the grounds of their nationality, this being British.

The failure of the companies who outsource their labour demands to allow British nationals to compete for those jobs in Britain where those jobs will be created, means those companies are directly discriminating against all British workers, as they have been denied the right to compete with foreign workers for those jobs.

Therefore the contracts themselves are unlawful under the Race Relations Acts.

In order for the contracts to be legitimately and lawfully issued the bids should have reflected wages costs and associated costs based on an assessment of including British workers employed in the UK who should have been able to compete for those jobs. The failure to include such costings, and the fact that the bid costings were based solely on using foreign labour, means the contracts are void from the very beginning as being unlawful based on illegality.

Therefore all such contracts must be terminated under contractual law and resubmitted for tender. Any costs incurred as a result of this delay must be borne by the contractors that submitted unlawful bids.

These British workers are acting in defence of the law, not against the law.

The media are defaming British workers and seeking to undermine public support for the strikers.

These strikes are of immense importance to future labour relations and the rights of British workers.

If British workers keep allowing the government and the EU to walk over them, and the establishment controlled trades unions keep supporting the rights of foreign workers to take away British jobs, then our rights as British workers will be swept away.

We must stand up against the globalisation of our national labour market.

The British government must act in the interests of British workers, their families and their children.

The government must act to ensure the rights British workers take precedence over the rights of foreign companies and foreign workers to profit from taking British jobs.

The silence of the Socialists in the Socialist Workers Party is deafening, the Left and Liberals are either silent or even attacking the British workers !

THERE FOR ALL TO SEE IS THE 'SOLIDARITY' THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS ACADEMICS AND STUDENTS OF THE SWP HAVE WITH BRITISH WORKERS !

The SWP despise the British workers - as they support the globalisation of our nation and our work force.

The very fact that the media seem shocked that a BNP government 'dare' act to protect the rights of British workers shows us how debased our nation has become.

Whoever though the British people would be run by such fools, crooks, cowards and weaklings. It makes me ashamed to think they share my blood.

Thursday, 29 January 2009

Once again we see the workers of France in the streets resisting the reactionary forces of the French state and its Bankster plutocratic criminal elite, but yet again the energy of revolution will be usurped by the socialist and liberal lackeys of the State, and its accomplices in the trades unions and media.

The only revolutions that can save our nations are NATIONAL REVOLUTIONS.

The liberal elite, the capitalist banksters and the socialist parasites are all linked together by the Servile State, which is directed by that politically correct conspiracy defined as Fabianism.

Under Fabianism we have the Servile State acting as both the enforcement mechanism of global free market consumerism in the private sphere and political correctness in the public sphere.

The Servile State is the monstrous vampyre that drains the lifeblood of our nation.

The Servile State is the jackboot of the surveillance state smashing down the doors of the people and stealing our privacy in order to impose its dystopian vision upon our society with its anti-White British racist social engineering projects such as mass immigration and multi-culturalism.

It is dominated by the ideology of the liberal fascist blackshirts in the public services, and the publically funded parasites of the race relations terrorism industry, who with their politically correct Gestapo's enforce the PC Maoist creedo with repressive laws and media witchunts.

The Servile State demands the people serve it - rather than it serves the people.

It must be smashed, its traitors punished and the mechanism of the National Community replace it.

Trade unions are now conspiracies against the interests of British workers.

They serve the government, the banksters and their corrupt leaders before they serve the British workers.

They care more for Cuba, serving the Labour government and supporting the interests of immigrant labour than they do for the interests of British Workers.

Trade union bosses now live in palatial summer houses formerly inhabited by Lords and Ladies and have pensions that elevate them to the ranks of the capitalist class itself.

They are collaborators not leaders.

The only trade union that can be trusted to serve the interests of the British people are unions dedicated to the national ideal such as The Solidarity union, which represents the rights of BRITISH WORKERS not non-British workers.

The path of red revolution is the road to the workhouses of capitalism. Riots with red flags serve only the system.

Liberalism is also the lickspittle of the globalists and of consumerism itself.

Whilst the perversion of political correctness steals away our rights and liberties, the liberals demand the removal of our ancestral rights and liberties in order to impose anti-white racist positive discrimination plans upon our people.

Whilst British workers are demanding British jobs for British Workers, at the same time the French people are resisting the theft of their wealth in order for the government to subsidise the bankers who created the present financkial crisis.

The French people must awaken and understand that the only way to save their nation is to vote for the Nationalist Alternative to the lackeys, pimps and whores of the present system.

The Banksters, the Reds, The Liberals, the Socialists, the Media and the government are all parts of the same conspiracy against the people.

Each of these forces seek to divert the people revolutionary energy into the waterless channels of plastic conservative reaction or plastic New Labour socialism.

The French people will only be saved by the National Idea.

The British people will only be free by embracing the National Idea.

The French people will only be free when they free themselves from the delusions and lies that keep them in chains.

It is the national flag that is the true flag of revolution, not the red rag of the collaborationists.

Future psychological historians, the explorers of the archetypal 'Innerverse', will one day judge the significance of the media constructed 'Black President Archetype' and its impact upon the contemporary collective unconscious, especially in relation to politics and the election of Barack Obama.

I suggest that decades of Hollywood movies, network TV drama's and media promoted imagery of the Black President Archetype have paved the way for the election of Barack Obama, and that Barack Obama has consciously employed this archetype for his own political promotion - and thereby created an actual archetypal social reality which has the potential to fully create the 'shadow' side of that archetype.

We can suggest an possible archetypal analysis of the significance of the Black President Archetype via its previous and existing cultural forms in the media.

The imagery of a Black President of the United States has been a staple of Hollywood movies for decades. Usually the Black President is seen as a saviour figure.

What is interesting is the context in which those cultural forms of the Black president within movies have been actualised, and they have almost always been associated with some of national disaster or planetary disaster. It appears that the archetypal image of the Black president of the United States is always accompanied by imagery associated with an apocalypse.

This is the shadow side of the archetype.

One cannot have one without the other.

From the film Deep Impact with Morgan Freeman as President Tom Beck, Dennis Haysbert as President David Palmer in 24, Chris Rock, Tommy Lister and James Earl Jones as Douglas Dillman in 'The Man' (1972), the image of the Black President is associated with war and crisis. In most cases the the media archetype of the Black President saves the nation and the world.

The Black President archetype is usually peddled to the masses as some sort of saviour who can always solve every existential threat to the nation and world.

Therefore in an age of chaos the archetype of the Black President is what becomes active within the collective unconscious. Problem / Reaction / Solution.

This is interesting as this is what is happening right now in the world.

It appears that the media creation of an archetype may in fact assist that archetype in actualising itself.

By creating a cultural imagery associated with a Black President saving the nation in peril, when the nation is in actual peril then that archetype may find fertile ground within the collective unconscious of a nation - and allow individuals and social forces to use that archetype to gain political power.

What is even more interesting is the suggestion that the election of a Black President may in fact be an manifestation of a prefiguration of some catastrophic event in human history.

I suggest that the Black President Archetype prefigures a global existential crisis of some kind.

In the alchemical process each must face the demon Choronzon, the beast who guards the gates within and who is the personal nemesis of all of us. That includes nations as well as indivduals and alchemists.

It may be that Obama represents the 'saviour' image that Americans associate with Choronzon - the figure who stands at the gates of the coming chaos. Obama is a taislman, a fetish, being used by the collective unconscious in order to somehow avert the coming disaster.

But Obama is not the only archetype that walks this world.

The creation of a myriad archetypal figures and images in the media, and in cultural forms all over the world, have unleashed armies of archetypes upon the planet.

Most of these archetypes will never be actualised as a wider social, but as society changes then these archetypes awaken and spread, colonising the minds of those they infect.

HUMBERSIDE Police are calling on protesters at LOR to remain “peaceful.”It is believed at least 60 police officers – including some mounted on horses – are currently monitoring the situation at the North Killingholme site.Superintendent operations for North Lincolnshire, Steve Graham, said: “Humberside Police are in attendance at the Lindsay Oil Refinery, North Killinghome, in response to a peaceful protest.“At this moment in time there are about 800 peaceful protesters at the site.“Police resources will be in attendance at the site as well as the surrounding area throughout the day.“I would reassure our local communities that our main aim is to ensure the safety of both local businesses and public as well as those taking part in the protest in order to minimise disruption and to keep traffic flowing.“I would appeal to those involved in this demonstration to remain peaceful. Whilst respecting the right of demonstration we will, however, consider any offences that may occur.”

A GRIMSBY fishery owner says he is prepared to go to jail to defend his ban on Eastern Europeans fishing in his waters – after calls to prosecute him.As reported, Tony Booth, owner of Trentside Fisheries, in Burton-upon-Stather, banned all foreigners from his ponds, over fears they might steal and eat his prize fish.

This ban has since been relaxed to include only Eastern Europeans, as carp and other coarse fish are often considered a delicacy in their home countries.

More than 90 per cent of asylum seekers registering at Croydon’s Lunar House are given the same date of birth, figures reveal.

UK Borders Agency figures obtained under the Freedom of Information act showed in 2008, 24,437 visitors to its headquarters on Wellesley Road were given the date of birth as January 1.

In 2007, of the 23,430 people applying for asylum in Britain, 21,652 – 90 per cent – were also given the January 1 birth date.

The staff at this croydon asylum proccessing centre should be interviewed under caution by the police and arrested and prosecuted if found to be assisting false asylum seekers to stay in our country by giving them fake birthdays that classify them as children and thereby prevent them being deported.

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Great article below - and he hits the nail firmly on the head when he points out that the right are religious nutters licking the arse of oil rich despots and the left are liberal scum defending the failed multi-cultural experiment by embracing liberal fascism and the terrorism of liberalism in its final blackshirt phase.

Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.

Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.

Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.

Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.

To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?

As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."

Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.

Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.

All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.

I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.

When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.

But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.

Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism.

The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.

The introduction of hate crime legislation brings a subjective element into the legal system. Where typically Lady Justice is blind and only takes objective facts into consideration, disregarding the position and the opinions of those committing the crimes, she may now apply the law unequally and selectively. Our societies subsequently risk losing an important principle of Western law, viz. equality under the law. Europe has already gone further down this road than America, but the U.S. is following fast in Europe’s tracks.

“If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech,” Pat Condell, a British stand-up comedian, says in a youtube video released earlier this week. Mr. Condell, though a comedian by profession, is not joking. He knows how two years ago a British television crew which went undercover in British mosques and taped sermons inciting to violence against non-Muslims, was itself charged by the police and Crown Prosecution Service for “stirring up racial hatred” against Muslims, while the preachers were left undisturbed. According to the police and the public prosecutor the words of the preachers had been “taken out of context,” while the “context” of the makers of the television program was filled in by their accusers: their aim was said to be to stir up anti-Muslim feelings among the public.

Prosecutors and judges are no longer interested in what actually and objectively happened. Instead they focus on the intentions which they claim motivated those who acted. No longer is Lady Justice blind to anything except the facts; she is blind to the facts, but claims to be a clairvoyant about everything else.

Last week , the White House website announced that President Obama and Vice President Biden intend to “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.” In the past, Europe was in the habit of imitating bad American examples (never the good ones). Now it seems the policies of “Change” in the U.S. mean that America will imitate Europe’s bad examples.

The “Matthew Shepard Act,” or “House Resolution 1592,” is named after Matthew Shepard, a young homosexual who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1998 by two heterosexual men near Laramie, Wyoming. Apparently the two men killed Mr. Shepard because they “hated” their victim for his homosexuality. Though the murderers were each punished with two consecutive life sentences, the fact that they “hated” their victim was not taken into account when the court decided the sentence. This caused much indignation among homosexual activists who argue that people who commit a crime out of “hate” should be punished more severely than those who do not.

Taking “hate” into account, however, brings a subjective element into the equation, allowing different punishments to be applied for exactly the same criminal acts. It is possible to objectively prove that someone has kidnapped, tortured and subsequently assassinated a victim, but is it also possible to prove that these acts constitute a worse crime if the perpetrator “hates” the victim (or the group he belongs to) than if the latter is totally indifferent towards the victim and only acts for the pleasure of torturing and killing a human being? If Matthew Shepard’s killers had randomly picked him, because they wanted to kidnap, torture and murder someone – anyone – for the sheer fun of it, would they somehow have been less criminal? This is a question which Lady Justice does not normally need to consider, until hate crime legislation is introduced.

In Europe, where citizens lack the protection of a First Amendment, hate crime legislation is used to punish citizens for the expression of negative opinions concerning minority groups. In Europe the concept of hate crimes make sense because hate crimes are crimes of opinion and sentiment. Unlike America, Europe criminalizes opinions and sentiments. However, in the United States, with its First Amendment, it is difficult to see what purpose hate crime legislation can serve. The Matthew Shepard Act contains a “Rule of Construction” explicitly stating that “Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Hence, it is hard to see what the use of introducing hate crime legislation in America can be, unless one deliberately wants to bring in a subjective element into the legal system which abolishes the old principle of equal treatment before the law and which justifies arbitrary actions on the part of the authorities. This is exactly what has happened across the Atlantic. In Europe, hate crime legislation has been used to silence people with opinions that do not conform with official state policies. These include celebrities, children and even elected politicians speaking on behalf of their electorate.

One of the famous victims of hate crime legislation in Europe is Brigitte Bardot. Last June the former sex symbol, once considered to be the very icon of France, was given a two-month suspended prison sentence and fined €15,000 by a court in Paris. Mrs. Bardot was convicted for “instigation of hatred” towards the Muslim community because in December 2006 she had sent a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister of France, to demand that Muslims anaesthesize animals before slaughtering them. In the letter she said, referring to Muslims, that she was “fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.” Harboring and expressing such sentiments is a crime in France.

Dieudonné M’Bala is one of France’s new icons. He is a French comedian who is known for his anti-Semitism. Mr. M’Bala claims Jews are “a mafia that controls everything in France” and harbors feelings about Jews which are similar Mrs. Bardot’s feelings about Muslims: France is under the thumb of the Jews, who are destroying it and imposing their values. In 2004 Mr. M’Bala was taken to court in Paris for violating French laws against incitation to racial or religious hatred, but the court ruled that he was not violating the law. Why did Mrs. Bardot get a suspended prison sentence and a fine of €15,000, while Mr. B’Bala went free? Because Mrs. Bardot and Mr. M’Bala are no longer equal under the law.

In October 2006 Codie Stott, a 14-year-old schoolgirl from Salford, England, was arrested for racism and spent three-and-a-half hours in police custody because she had refused to study with a group of five Asian pupils who did not speak English. When the Asians began talking in Urdu, Codie went to speak to the teacher. “I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But the teacher started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.” A complaint was made to the police and Codie was placed under arrest. She was not prosecuted as she was too young, but the experience was traumatic for the young girl. The same applies to Jamie Bauld from Cumbernauld, Scotland, an 18-year-boy with Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old. In September 2007 he was charged with “racial assault” after he had pushed an Asian girl on the playground.

Hate crime legislation is used to silence the famous and the innocent, but also the people’s democratically elected representatives. In January 2007 Christian Vanneste, a member of the French Parliament, was convicted by the Court of Appeal of Douai because two years earlier during a debate in the parliament and afterwards on television he had said that “homosexual behavior endangers the survival of humanity” and that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality.” Mr. Vanneste, a member of the governing UMP party of President Sarkozy, was fined €3,000. The Court also ordered him to pay €3,500 in damages to each of the three homosexual activist organizations that had taken him to court, plus the expense of publishing the verdict in three newspapers. The three organizations welcomed the court ruling, saying that it “aims to punish homophobic comments which should be fought because they inspire and legitimize verbal and physical attacks.”

Last week Susanne Winter, an elected member of the Austrian Parliament, was convicted by a court in Graz to a suspended jail sentence of three months and a fine of €24,000 for “inciting racial hatred and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation.” At a meeting of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ in January 2008, Mrs. Winter had said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” since he married a six-year-old girl, and that he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.” She had also said that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean” and warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” stating that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following these remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Mrs. Winter, who was subsequently placed under police protection. This did not persuade the judge, Christoph Lichtenberg, to be more lenient. He told Mrs. Winter: “You have only one goal: to gain votes by a despicable method, by appealing to xenophobic feelings.” Judge Lichtenberg said a severe punishment was asked for in order to prevent Mrs. Winter from voicing similar opinions during her next election campaign.

Also last week, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, decided to prosecute Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, for “the instigation of hatred against Muslims” as the producer of Fitna, a short documentary about the Koran. In his movie, which can be seen here, Mr Wilders says that the Koran calls for violence against Jews and other non-Muslims. Mr. Wilders lives under constant police protection following death threats from Koran readers.

A few weeks earlier, on 3 January, Harry van Bommel, a Socialist member of the Dutch Parliament, took part in a demonstration during which he called for an “intifada” against Israel and marched with demonstrators who were shouting “Jews to the gas.” Will Mr. van Bommel, like Mr. Wilders, be charged with incitement to racial hatred? Will he be given the same treatment as Mr. Wilders? Considering that equality under the law is no longer guaranteed, this is far from certain. Indeed, while Mr. Wilders will be prosecuted, Mr. van Bommel is likely to go free.

One noticeable fact in hate crime prosecutions is that those prosecuted are often members of European majority groups, such as heterosexuals, non-Muslims or non-Socialists. Hate speech, racial slurs or religious insults directed against a majority group do not seem to be as equally punishable under hate crimes legislation as those directed against minorities. Unlike Susanne Winter, Alfred Hrdlicka, an Austrian “artist,” who last year depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted, let alone sentenced. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is.

Last Friday, in a speech at the Islamic University of Rotterdam, Khalid Yasin, a radical Muslim leader, said that Geert Wilders “should be flogged for his crimes.” While Mr. Wilders is critical of the Koran he has never advocated flogging Muslims. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilders is being prosecuted and Mr. Yasin is not. Why? Why do the British police arrest 14-year old children, such as Codie Stott, but do they not take action against Muslims such as Anjem Choudary who said in a television interview that anyone who insults Islam deserves “capital punishment”?

Is it because people such as Mr. Wilders, Mrs. Winter, Mr. Vanneste, Mrs. Bardot, though voicing strong opinions, never commit violence, while Muslims extremists threaten to kill everyone who opposes them and are consequently feared by the European authorities? Perhaps. Is it because members of majority groups are prosecuted for hate crimes, but hardly ever members of minority groups? Perhaps. In 2006, a heterosexual man in Belgium lodged a complaint against a media campaign that used the slogan “Dirty Heterosexual.” The Belgian government’s anti-racism and anti-discrimination body rejected the complaint, arguing that “stigmatization of a majority is impossible. Discrimination is something which by definition can affect only minorities.”

Whatever the reason, however, it is clear that with the introduction of hate crime legislation Europe’s citizens are no longer equal under the law. Some are harassed, prosecuted and sentenced, while others are not. Everyone who cares about freedom and democracy should demand that the law treats citizens equally, that Lady Justice does not discriminate, that she will again be blindfolded, so that Mr. Wilders is treated the same as Mr. van Bommel, Mrs. Bardot the same as Mr. M’Bala, Mrs. Winter the same as Mr. Hrdlicka, so that children and people with Down’s syndrome are left in peace, and so that people are judged not by how they feel toward each other but by the way they treat each other.

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

Tom Cruise is excellent in his part and the film maintains pace and grips the attention throughout.

The main thought though that arose as I left the film was this - What would those men who died fighting against Hitler make of todays Germany with its minarets, its abortion clinics, its heroin shooting galleries, mass immigration, its Liberal Fascist Elite and its degeneracy.

The men who defied Hitler were NATIONALISTS.

They were not liberals or socialists, and I think they would have regarded the state of their 'sacred Germany' with something close to disgust.

Germany, like the rest of the EU is no longer a nation - it is an adjunct of the UN and EU itself.

A Germany of German culture and nationalist values fell with them.

The irony of their sacrifice is that the vision of a Greater Europe that was Hitlers model for a post-war Europe has come to pass through the mechanism of the European Union itself.

The Liberal Fascist regime that rules Germany now is an intolerant and fascistic as the Nazi and Communist regimes it replaced.

The Mitchell and Webb comedy duo have a great sketch where two SS officers realise that 'hey are we are the bad guys ? '.

The irony of liberalism, and liberals, is that they do not realise that THEY are the bad guys.

It is liberals who have undertook the most disgusting slaughter of the innocents in human history with the Abortion Holocaust.

It is liberals who have have collaborated with the capitalists to create Consumerism and who have destroyed the environment of the planet.

It is the liberals who have supported the drugs scourge and glorified the sick individualism of the drugs world and glorified drugs culture.

It is liberals who have supported mass immigration and the evisceration of our national cultures.

It is liberals who have become the most fascistic movement in history - removing our rights and liberties in order to achieve their insane dystopian vision.

The plotters depicted in the Valkyrie film would not recognise their sacred Germany.

Am I a cynic for thinking that the easiest way to kill America's white youth is to condition and fill their brains with liberal bullshit and lies all the way through school then get a black president elected who declares that all US college leavers will have to do two years military service in a Peace Corps ( eg a rebranded US army - the happy smiley face of US Imperalism promoted with images of multi-cultural youth helping save crack babies in Harlem and helping farmers in a drought ridden Mid West - Bennetton Bullshit in army fatigues ) - and then send them straight to whatever war zone they need troops in or then order them to kill their own people in the US when the food riots begin.

You can just imagine the little brainwashed liberal lemmings, their eyes shining with Obama Messiah fervour, loading their M16's and shooting at demonstrators on American streets.

A religion is not a religion without blood and sacrifice - and sooner or later the Obama Messiah nuts will be shedding the blood of their fellow citizens in order to create their cult of the Obama Messiah Fuhrer.

June 5, 2006

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The article republished below entitled "Warning: The Impending Draft," February 25, 2004 , was written two years ago as a warning regarding the impending restoration of the draft. It is now more important than ever since the legislation that article predicted and warned about is now in committee and waiting to be acted upon. We had best become informed regarding its history, included in the 2004 article, and its present status in committee.

The official title of the Universal National Service Act of 2003 states "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." (This legislation, also known as S. 89 and H.R. 163, will, for purposes of brevity, be referred to as UNSA2003)

Similar "draft" proposals have been in the pipeline for many years, starting with the 1962 Arms Control and Disarmament Act (1962 ACDA) under President Kennedy which called for "the disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their establishment in any form whatsoever, other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force." The UNSA2003 includes similar troublesome wording: "two-year period of national service that promotes national defense and homeland security."

Could this proposed draft legislation be related to this same 1962ACDA which called for national armed forces required to preserve internal order and contributions to a UN Peace Force? Could UNSA2003 be related to the controversial Patriot Act required to implement Homeland Security and Bush's "War on Terrorism," and his call for citizen involvement in Citizens Corp? With Bush I and II's emphasis on community service through their government-controlled "Points of Light" and "Faith-Based Initiatives" agendas, the possibility exists that UNSA2003, aside from its call to reinstate the military draft, will serve to mandate the Bush Family's "community service" agendas "in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security."

President Bush said last year ...I ask all Americans to dedicate two years of their lives, the equivalent of 4000 hours, to the service of our country...get them involved in Peace Corps, AmeriCorp, Senior Corp or the new Citizens Corp. As well-meaning as these service programs may appear to be, don't forget they are "government", not "private" programs and are only "voluntary" at the present time. The universal draft will "mandate" these community service programs in which case George Orwell's comment in his book "1984" comes to mind: "Uh...pardon me, sir....aren't you supposed to be doing your community service during this time period? Why are you working to put food on your own table, when there are many to be served? Only totalitarian (fascist and communist) governments mandate community service, also known as "slave labor." ( Maryland 's State Board of Education has started the ball rolling by mandating community service in order for students to graduate.)

The stationing of U.S. troops all over the world has resulted in this call for a draft. According to the Agence France-Press, November, 2003, "Republican Senator John McCain said we must deploy at least another full division to Iraq . This does not include the 15,000 fresh reservists the Pentagon is currently sending overseas... When the U.S. fought the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, it had ten army divisions ready to deploy at home as reinforcements. Today, there is just one division remaining in the United States and the United States reserves are stretched thin." Enter the "draft" legislation to take care of the problem.

During the Nixon Administration a "far-reaching proposal for a Universal Public Service System" exposed the hidden, long-term plans of our globalist leaders. A November, 1970 issue of The Scott Report said "A recommendation was made recently by a White House Task Force headed by Mrs. Winthrop Rockefeller, wife of the Governor of Arkansas and a political power in liberal Republican circles. The basic idea...is that all Americans, probably beginning somewhere between the ages of 17 and 19, serve their country for two years in one of a variety of areas, including health and social welfare programs, and the military... Drafted originally by the "Whiz Kids" of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations (who drafted the Arms Control & Disarmament Act, ed) the new Universal Public Service proposal was proposed by former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara just before he became head of the World Bank. At the time, the plan received a cold reception in Congress and was shelved..."

Urge your elected officials to vote NO on S89 and HR 163.

Note: 170,327 American soldiers have been killed participating in UN peace actions which have little or nothing to do with national security (Korean War through Gulf War II: 1950-2004). This figure does not include those who later died from injuries received in battle.)

Current information regarding this bill:

Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced on 14 February 2006 a bill (HR 4752) in the US Congress which requires: "all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age. The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would, according to the clauses of the bill, be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the "Neighborhood Watch Teams" and the "Volunteer Police Service" established in partnership with local law enforcement. (see www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf)

While there was some media coverage of Rangel's initiative prior to the formal introduction of the bill, the matter has not been mentioned by the US media since it was introduced in February. There has been a deafening silence: since February 2006, not a single article or editorial has appeared in print on the Universal National Service Act of 2006.

Neither has it been the object of public debate. The bill has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee.......Readers can bookmark the House Armed Services Committee at www.house.gov/hasc/schedules and add their names to the Mailing List, to be kept informed of the committee's schedule. We need to get active, especially once HR4752 is scheduled on the HASC calendar. We also need to be alert if a bill or amendment is introduced mandating women to register for Selective Service.

I don't expect much to happen before the end of the year. However, if the same pattern is used that has often been followed in years past, this legislation quietly originated during the present Republican administration (already done), the next election will attempt to put a Democrat Congress back in control, they will activate and pass what appears to the uninformed public to be Democrat-originated legislation, the Democrats get blamed for the new law by an angry public who can think no deeper than what they are told is "partisan politics," so the following election they vote the Republicans back in ("because they are conservative"), and then the GOP will quietly implement the next round of government expansion! And the "puppeteers," who control both parties, further their agenda, one step at a time.

For every single problem in the black community in America some idiot could find an excuse to blame whitey.

Now though whitey ain’t in power.

This means the scrutiny, the criticism and the abuse directed at whitey will now be directed at the black president and the black community.

When whitey was in power, the US black community had the right to say what they want about whitey.

Now a black president is in charge of America and the white community in America now claim for themselves the privilege of saying what they want about him and the black community.

What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Once it was easy to find a white scapegoat for every problem.

Now the power structure has been reversed the people who were once the governed, are now the governors - and they had better be prepared to take the same amount of shit that they once threw at whitey.

The issue of this psychological reversal has not even been touched yet in the media.

Soon though Whites will realise that, “ Hey, we aint THE MAN anymore. Obama is black, and all the racial shit that was thrown at us for decades we can now fling straight back at him. “

This is of immense importance as the demographic nature of America changes.

As White America loses its grip on the American power structures, then the white community just like the black community will become more racialised with a racial consciousness.

Obama is a prefiguration of the future for white America as an ethnic minority - and this means that the freedom and moral legitimacy to embrace ethno-centrist principles and ethno-communalist structures that blacks once had will now be able to be claimed by whites.

The monopoly that Black Americans claimed to criticise the WASP elite is now claimed by white working class people all over America.

White people in America now have as much right as blacks to criticise the racial nature of the American power structure.

Soon white people will wake up to the fact that they too can criticise Obama on the basis of his race and not just his policies and politics.

If it was okay for the black community to throw the issue of race in the face of the white man, then the black man should expect the same thing back when it is warranted.

The ’blame whitey’ racial grievances industry is now dead in the water, its just that the shysters that make billions out of the racial terrorism industry every year have not yet woken up to that fact yet.

Whites are still too cowed to rise up against the racial terrorists just yet, but soon they rise up.

As more and more whites are dropped into poverty, and the more that the affirmative action plans discriminate against them on the basis of their race in order to create a black middle class, then more and more the issues of poverty and class will take on the mantle of race.

The white man in America is just about to wake up.

Where I come from we have a saying ‘Don’t give it if you cant take it’, and this means those that throw muck better be prepared to have muck thrown back at them.

The decisions regarding race made by Obama that directly benefit the black community in America at the expense of the white working class and middle class will now be scrutinised and critiqued as viciously and as thoroughly as the decisions once taken by white politicians for the benefit of the white middle class.

The moment that Obama starts giving blacks in the US, and other ethnic groups, benefits that he does not give to whites then the white community will rise up and roar their anger at him.

This is only fair - as whitey is not in power anymore and because whitey is about to become the ethnic minority in America.

At the moment whitey is still a bit spaced out by Obama’s win.

Whitey knows he is about to become a minority in America but he has been so cowed and browbeaten by the rhetoric of racism and the racial terrorists that he doesn’t quite know what to think or do about that fact.

This coyness and indecision will soon evaporate and America will begin to see a radicalised racially aware white community that will be as vociferous, and critical, of Obama and the race relations industry as blacks were once critical of whites and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Power Structure.

The Liberal Love Fest and the media honeymoon isn’t over yet - whites are still wandering about in a daze of docility, stupidity and media conditioning, but they are slowly going to wake up when they realise that all the vapid rhetoric of Obama about ’hope and change’ was simply so much blather and spin.

Whites will very soon wake up, wipe all the media bullshit from their eyes and realise ‘Hey man, this crap about change and hope was just so much media bullshit. Aint nothing changed for me. I am still unemployed, I still cannot pay my mortgage, my kids are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, I still cant get a job on merit as the race relations terrorists are still imposing affirmative action plans, positive discrimination plans and quoata’s against me as I am white, I still cant afford to buy a home, I still cannot get a bank loan and the economy is still ruined’.

The poor white working class will no longer accept affirmative action plans when they themselves are the racial minority and nor will the white middle class accept their children being denied places at university when whites are the minority in the country.

Change is going to come alright - but not the change that the media lemmings vomited all over the place in order to get Obama elected.

White America is about to have the most painful hangover in its life.

Once it wakes up, throws up and has a coffee then a massive change will occur.

White America will grow its balls back.

No more will whites in America put up with the endless drivel of blame whitey.

White Americans will be now able to point their finger at Obama and say’ ’Hey we aint Da Man anymore - YOU ARE DA MAN ’, and scream back the same racist rhetoric that has been thrown at them for generations.

Once white americans grow their balls back then America will never be the same again.

Obama has triggered a racial revolution in that he will force white Americans to develop a racial consciousness or face racial extinction.

Obama has ensured that instead of a post-racial America that the future is now a racially polarised America where whites will be able to express their ethnic loyalty in the same way that Blacks are used too.

Well, it’s no joke, and you don’t have to buy ‘em. You can see ‘em for free on the internet.

You can read all about it here, and compare the pics, especially the first one, to known pictures of Stanley Anne Dunham.

It’s her alright.

And, oh yeah, remember that black Communist named Frank who his grandparents were always taking him to visit? And who Obama considers his mentor? Well, the reason his grandparents were always taking him to visit him is that Frank Davis the Commie is probably his real father.

Image - Hate Racism, Love Banana Spiders. Searchlight have just announced that they intend to start a campaign to protect the Banana spider from racist spider squishers.

The award for '2009 Twat Of The Year' has it seems already got a strong contender.

Professor Christopher Smout, Scotland's Historiographer Royal and the founder of the Institute for Environmental History at St Andrews University, is what is classified as a 'Liberal Academic Twat'.

The Liberal Academic Twat is a subset of the generic 'Liberal Twat' able to be identified by the following traits ;

1) They have never had a real job in the real world and have usually spent their entire lives sucking up public taxes whilst teaching twaddle to idiotic students

2) They live in an middle class Ivory Tower with other middle class mainly white public purse parasites in a tax funded university

3) They are usually demented and see the spectres of 'racism' or 'institutional racism' everywhere, in a manner similar to the way hysterical women in the Middle Ages ( or in contemporary American Christian Fundamentalist groups ) once saw witches or devils everywhere.

According to proffessor Smout we should embrace scorpions, snakes, malaria, locusts, American crayfish and all other 'foreign and alien' creatures that are not part of the native British ecological system as part of the 'racial' diversity of the UK.

If we try and eradicate these alien species from our shores, and seek to recreate a pristine and harmonious ecological system, then we are 'racists' and almost 'Nazis'.

Yes that right we are 'racists' - Even I never thought that one day the term 'racism' would one day be used by liberals to defend scorpions and snakes.

What makes this even funnier is the oh so pious, liberal editorial from the saddoes at the Independent newspaper that welcomes the criminalisation of anyone who dares call a ruddy duck an alien species here ;

Are we "quasi-racist" towards so-called alien bird and animal species? Professor Christopher Smout thinks we are, and says it is time that we re-examined the dogma, upheld by groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that many non-native species deserve to be eradicated. A case in point is the ruddy duck, a perky bird from North America, which had been paddling around Britain's ponds since the 1950s until the RSPB earmarked the species for extermination, principally because some had the temerity to fly off to Spain and cross-breed with a similar, rarer species, creating a hybrid.

As the professor suggests, it is incongruous to apply rigid doctrines of ethnic or racial purity to the natural world that we would now judge repellent when applied to human society.

Conservation groups disagree, but there is no doubt that old assumptions about the desirability of keeping native species "pure" are now being questioned, and rightly so. "

Yes it is true - they are ruddy bonkers, the whole ruddy lot of them.

I can just imagine the prosecution of wildfowlers for 'hate crimes' for daring to shoot the ruddy duck, arrests of those that squish banana spiders that escape from packs of bananas for 'racism' and the public villification for anyone caught chopping down a foreign weed as a 'Nazi genocidal maniac'.

"Save the aliens!" is the cry – and an unusual one too. Safeguarding Britain's flora and fauna from the ravages of mankind and "non-native invader" species has become the largely unquestioned cause célèbre of a generation.

In a new book, however, a leading historian argues this "culturally-determined" idea of native and non-native species is fundamentally flawed, and calls attempts to preserve the genetic identity of British wildlife "quasi-racist". Professor Christopher Smout, Scotland's Historiographer Royal and the founder of the Institute for Environmental History at St Andrews University, said species needing conservation should receive it regardless of "ethnicity". Those which cause problems, such as native bracken or non-native giant hogweed, should be dealt with in the same way and classed as "pests".

"The preoccupation with alien species is comparatively recent and not something which worried scientists and ecologists 50 years ago," said Professor Smout, whose book, Exploring Environmental History, is published in May. "They were concerned with pests. In recent times, the emphasis has been on the fact these pests are aliens and it has tended to a blanket condemnation to all species not classed as natives."

One such unfortunate is the ruddy duck, an American species accidentally released from the Slimbridge Wetland Centre in Gloucestershire – described as the "birthplace of modern conservation" – in the 1950s. The population expanded to such an extent that the bird migrated to Europe and, in Spain, started breeding with the white-headed duck, threatening the latter's status as a distinct species. The RSPB persuaded the British Government to carry out a decade-long cull of ruddy ducks.

"Conservationists are up in arms because they fear the ducks will all get turned into some kind of mish-mash," said Professor Smout. "The conservationists would say 'We're doing this because it is endangering the genetic integrity of the white-headed duck'.

"I don't think that's a scientifically valid point of view. The concern with genetic integrity seems almost quasi-racist. Our attitude towards alien species is culturally determined and sometimes you end up with rather bizarre actions by scientists."

Another case in point is the sika deer from Asia. Scientists have warned breeding with native red deer in Scotland threatened the famous "Monarch of the Glen". Professor Smout dismisses it as "no big deal", adding: "If one species can successfully interbreed with another, it might assist its survival in evolutionary terms. If it is a failure, the hybrid will die out."

Andre Farrar, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, was outraged by the claim of "quasi-racism", saying the more extreme wing of the animal rights movement had suggested that conservationists who talked about alien species "are one step from Goebbels". "These are dedicated people who have given their lives to give beleaguered native fauna a chance."

Not welcome here: 'Alien' species

*Ruddy ducks were introduced from North America to Britain in the 1950s and their population grew rapidly. They have been repeatedly culled down to about 4,100 over-wintering birds to stop their migration to Spain, where interbreeding with white-headed ducks is threatening the latter's existence as a separate species.

*Reeves's pheasant is endangered, with just 2,000 left worldwide. It is native to China but there are a few wild escapees in Britain. According to the RSPB, they have never formed a sustainable population. Professor Smout argues that they should be considered for conservation projects here, despite their alien status.

*Sika deer were brought to the UK in 1860 from Asia. Scientists recently voiced concern that they are interbreeding with red deer, threatening the red deer's genetic identity.

On the Channel 4 news tonight it featured some old Palestinian guy sitting in the ruins of his house that had been bombed by the IDF.

The Channel 4 journalist stated that he had THIRTEEN CHILDREN and dozens of grandchildren.

What sort of idiot in a place where 80 % of the people depend on foreign aid has 13 bloody kids !

Imagine if he was white and working class with 13 kids and living in Leeds or Bradford, you can just imagine the sneers from the White liberal elite scum who sooooo sympathise with the plight of the poor Palestinian people. They would call him a scrounger, a fool etc etc.

One rule for whites - another one for everyone else of course.

In effect the world is subsidising the global Jihad and Hamas.

Gaza is so over populated because the Palestinians do not need to work. They just have as many kids as they can and know the West will subside and feed them.

They must be laughing their bollocks off at the liberal idiots that fund the Global Jihad - on one hand we get Dhimmitude in the UK and we also sponsor the demographic conquest of Islam in the Middle East.

Whilst the US is condemned for subsidising Israel, the world is silent about the UN and EU subsidising Gaza over population.

If the people of Gaza had to live within their means, then the poverty of the place would be minimal.

It is this idiotic subsidising of global over population by demented leftists, who are usually enviromentalists as well, that is destroying the planet.

You cannot be an environmentalist and remain silent about global over population.

You cannot subsidise feckless idiots that refuse to stop having children and save the planet.

As for the BBC - the bbc are about as imprtial as Pravda during the Soviet Union.

They are not doing the appeal for the country to give money to allow the feckless in Gaza to keep spitting out kids as they know that the Zionists in the BBC will spit their dummies out at the anti-Israel Jewxs in the BBC.

We are all angry about the persecution and prosecution of Geert Wilders, but the lesson of history is that it is not enough to get angry - the lesson is that we must get organised.

The day that the trial of Geert Wilders begins then every European nation must send contingents of people to the court to support Geert or they must begin programmes of Civil Resistance in their own nations.

I would like to see sit down demonstrations in Holland that close down the ports, the airports, the motorways and the entire system itself.

We need railway stations occupied, courts occupied, police stations occupied and the media stations targeted by activists who close down the entire media system itself.

People should sit in the motorways with banners and close down the traffic systems.

They should occupy the offices of the newspapers and the TV stations.

We must begin a peoples uprising against the system that persecutes all those who dare express an opinion that the system disagrees with.

Every single one of us should carry a copy of his film on our mobile phones and play the film outside the court.

The face of Geert Wilders must become a poster that stares down at us from every high street.

Distribute DVD's of the film for free to your neighbourhood the day the trial starts - spread the film as far and wide as possible.

We should organise marches, demonstrations, sit ins and conferences.

WE MUST ORGANISE THE EUROPEAN RESISTANCE MOVEMENT NOW !

Ours must be a movement based on Civil Resistance - direct peaceful action that disrupts the functions of the state and the systems of repression that the state depends upon.

That means sit downs in the street, locking ourselves in the courts and police stations, demonstations, flash mobs and the rest of the peaceful civil actions used by the far left in its campaigns.

Ours will be a pecafeul revolution based on Civil Resistance - and the model for it must be the Mask Of Anarchy by Shelley and use the forms of peaceful resistance as defined by Gandhi, Satyagraha ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha

The basis of Civil Resistance is ;

1) We do not use violence against persons or property. We are peaceful at all times.

2) We aim to block or prevent the system using violence against others. Our aim to to defend liberty, free speech and the truth even from our governments that remove and threaten them.

3) We allow the system to use violence against us as by so doing the system is revealed to all the people as the barbaric monster it has become. We do not meet violence with violence.

The present systems of power are insane.

Our governments and the politicians that control our governments are all insane.

Any political system that thinks that a global nuclear war and MAD ( mutually Assured Destruction ) is a logical basis for war is run by insane mad men.

Therefore such a system feeds, and grows stonger on violence.

The more violence used against such a system , the stronger it gets.

The present system is based on those in power having an absolute monopoly on violence - and those in power are as willing to drop bombs on their own people as they are on people in Iraq.

Therefore all those that advocate violence against such a system must be regarded as agents of the system.

The more that violence is used against the system, the more laws the system can bring in to repress the people and surpess the truth.

The only way to confront such an insane system is to use peaceful Civil Resistance.

We must begin a brand new Civil Rights struggle for our ancestral liberties, right and freedoms - a movement based on defending truth against all those that threaten it.

Civil Resistance is pro-active, it is not passive or weak.

Civil Resistance is in your face - and the aim of the movement must be to allow the system to remove its mask and reveal the insane violent monster that lies beneath it.

When we march we allow the system to tear gas us, to cosh us and beat us.

OUR AK47 IS THE VIDEO CAMERA.

We film the liberal fascist state as it beats us down and fills the streets running with blood - and the more violence used against us the stronger we get and the weaker the state becomes.

The one thing the state cannot stop is the internet, the video camera and the distribution of images of its repression and violence.

The more the state smashes down unarmed people, the weaker it will become.

In every European nation we must organise now for his trial.

Groups must be set up to either attend or to undertake Civil Resistance in their own nations when the trial begins.

Once the trial starts - then the movement must take to the streets.

The system relies on our passivity and on violence being used against it.

Become active and non-violent - and the system will crumble.

Do not do as the idiot Islamists do and attack the police when they marches and demonstrations - we will greet the policemen and women as friends and kin, not as the enemy.

Carry flags and flowers on the demonstrations - not rocks and stones.

When they are ordered to attack us they will only be attacking themselves, their brothers and sisters, their mothers and fathers.

We will not have thugs leading our marches but old men and women, children and families - and if the police obey any orders to attack us then they are the criminals along with the crminals that ordered the attacks.

Film the criminals and put the film on the internet - and show the world who the real fascists are and what real liberal fascism is.

Become an army of one - and lead the revolution yourselves.

Then join the Civil Resistance struggle and overthrow the system itself.

http://www.artofeurope.com/shelley/she5.htm

'And if then the tyrants dareLet them ride among you there,Slash, and stab, and maim, and hew, -What they like, that let them do.

'With folded arms and steady eyes,And little fear, and less surprise,Look upon them as they slayTill their rage has died away.

'Then they will return with shameTo the place from which they came,And the blood thus shed will speakIn hot blushes on their cheek.

'Every woman in the landWill point at them as they stand -They will hardly dare to greetTheir acquaintance in the street.

'And the bold, true warriorsWho have hugged Danger in warsWill turn to those who would be free,Ashamed of such base company.

'And that slaughter to the NationShall steam up like inspiration,Eloquent, oracular;A volcano heard afar.

'And these words shall then becomeLike Oppression's thundered doomRinging through each heart and brain,Heard again - again - again -

'Rise like Lions after slumberIn unvanquishable number -Shake your chains to earth like dewWhich in sleep had fallen on you -Ye are many - they are few.'